South Bashing and the Confederate Flag

There were actualy numerous different flags used by south
in war the "Navy Jack" is the most known
More on this is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_o...tes_of_America

But the debate about whether it stands for "Rebellion against Washington"
or Slavery will go on for a long time I am sure
As John M. Coski put it in his book "The Confederate Battle Flag", the Confederate Flag remains a powerful symbol and is unlikely to go away.

*******************************************
What is usually called "The Confederate Flag" or "The Confederate Battle Flag" (actually the Navy Jack as explained above) is still a widely-recognized symbol. The display of the flag is a controversial and very emotional issue, generally because of disagreement over exactly what it symbolizes. To many in the US South it is simply a symbol of their heritage and pride in their ancestors who held out during years of war under terrible odds and sacrifice. Others see it as a symbol of the institution of slavery, or of the Jim Crow laws established by the many Southern states enforcing racial segregation within their borders for almost a century later. As a result, there have been numerous political fights over the use of the Confederate battle flag in Southern state flags, at sporting events at Southern universities, and on public buildings. According to Civil War historian and southerner Shelby Foote, the flag traditionally represented the south's resistance to northern political dominance generally; it became racially charged during the Civil Rights Movement, when protecting segregation suddenly became the focal point of that resistance.
*************************************************

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
I don't know how to respond to that.

---

Sorry, the comment was vague so that I wouldn't risk offending any certain peoples. I'll explain in another vague way what I meant by that statement...

Race A is the majority.

Race B is the minority.

Race B is severely oppressed by Race A.

Many years later Race B is no longer much of a minority and has both freedom and rights in the country they now reside in, but many still claim that any form of direct opposition from Race A is racism.

If that still confuses you, I hate it when people use the concept of Racism as a crutch to get what they want. (ie., court cases won, etc.) Especially when they're no longer really considered a minority, I think those guilty of this should let the past die and move on with their lives.

But the same could be said about people who ARE racist. Let it go! The world is a different place.

And since this is such a sensative subject, I wish to say that I am not trying to insult anyone in any way shape or form. I'm not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally. :D

Just to give a slightly different perspective. A few years ago, my brother and I were travelling through Ireland on vacation. We were in this one small town, hanging out at a pub talking with the owner/bartender, his best friend and just a couple others. When asked where from the states we came, we replied, "North Carolina." To which his buddy said, "The rebels!" We looked a bit confused and he replied "We're the rebels too!" He pointed to a display on the wall of their local amateur football team, proudly bearing the confederate flag as their logo. Turns out the county we were in was one of the first to resist English rule and saw us Southerners as soul brothers.

They can't drive for shit down their either. I mean, they drive like pricks up here, but here we have snow and ice and hills and crappy roads, etc... Bit of drizzle or light rain and there's a wreck everywhere you go. I can speak for northern florida.

Maybe I'm exaggerating. But I don't think so :D

Did I start this thread?! Would the real Savaric please stand up? I blame Gromgor for this.

Ok, THIS I have to chime in on. I have read quite a few opinions on the matter and all are intelligently put even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them. Being a Southerner, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (my great-great grandfather on at least two sides fought with the Confederacy), and a proud heir to the Battle Flag as well as the Stars and Bars, I feel pretty strongly about this.

One thing I have heard everyone agree on is that the war was fought partially over slavery. You said it, Gromgor: the victors write history. Fact: less than 10% of Southerners owned slaves and about 75-80% of THOSE owned only one or two. Hardly the plantations so commonly depicted. Ok, next thing: if you invested $40,000 into something would you mistreat it? If you bought a car for that kind of money, would you ignore maintenance, refuse to change the oil, and kick dents into the body the first time it ran out of gas? Of course not. That's ridiculous. Simple fact is that yes, slavery was a fact of life then. But to take the 1860's Northerners off their pedestal, they didn't give a damn about black folks. They were far more racist than the slaveowners themselves. Blind accusations? Then explain why after Amendments 13-15 were passed former slaves went to the North, couldn't get a job, and returned to their former masters to do the same job as before they were "freed".

I don't like flaming, but Darion, please read history from multiple sources and try to be more open-minded than the same bullshit rhetoric that has been spewed by the political machine and is FINALLY being cut thanks to free information today. Your statements aggravated the hell out of me, but I don't really blame you. You know what you were told. But now you are being told differently.

Example: You said "One could easily look at the other side of the matter and say that it's a symbol of selfishness in that the original desire was to renege on a contract previously thought of as unbreakable." Wrong. Absolutely wrong. Not until the end of the War Between the States did secession become illegal. And even if it was, what could the U.S. do about it? They are no longer a part of the country and not bound by its laws. At that point, it ceases to become a "Civil War". The Confederate States of America was a separate country with its own established Constitution, president, Congress, currency, everything. AND twice before, New England states attempted to secede from the Union before the thought ever entered a single Southern brain. The only difference? The previous attempts failed to garner the necessary majority in the respective State Congresses. If it was truly a contract as you say, those states would have been severely punished for even attempting it. Revolutions are nothing new to the political world. Political and military coups happen all the time. And naturally those in power want to stay that way. Cite me one example of a rebellion being allowed.

You reduced the Taxation Without Representation issue to a simple matter of minority and bad sportsmanship. Fact of the matter is that representation is the sole basis of our government and each citizen has a right to address greivances against the government. BOHICA is NOT how our government runs! (The military on the other hand...) Now, this is one reason why we left England. A lack of representation. The South was just as entitled to leave as the Colonies were. The only difference is that the North could not survive as a country without the South. We brought in too much money on the agricultural side of the economy. And they taxed the hell out of us. Unfair taxation was the MAIN reason for the war. Bottom line: slavery was a non-issue. Most Americans didn't care about slavery, a scant few abolitionists were active in the political arena, and just as few Southerners needed slavery to survive. If the Abolitionist Movement was so popular, why did it take until 1865 to ratify the 13th Amendment? And before anyone mentions the Emancipation Proclamation, don't. That was the single most bullshit politiccal tool EVER.

The Industrial Revolution was underway. This is an undisputed historical fact. Economical fact is that the South was primarily agricultural, whereas the North was more industrial. By the nature of the businesses, the Industrial Revolution will have a more immediate impact on the North. However, with such inventions as the cotton gin and many more on the horizon, slavery was growing more and more obsolete. Most Southerners viewed slavery as a necessary evil, but it was on its way out. Oh, and so did most Northerners, BTW. Slavery in America would not have seen the 20th Century and probably before even then. Prior to the war, many slaveowners freed their slaves before going off to war. Many retained them because the slaves were all the family that the wives and children would have left. Yes, I said family. Why do you think that they continued to retain the masters' surnames after being freed? Fact is that slavery wasn't even considered a major political factor until the Emancipation Proclamation was fabricated.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/almintr.html
"pressure by abolitionists and radical Republicans..." it says. Check the definition of radical.

http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/L...mancipate.html
And here's the Proclamation itself. Read the letter. It freed the slaves held within the states in rebellion against the United States. The very same states that seceded and declared their own independence. In short: NONE! He had no legal jurisdiction within the Confederate States of America. Its sole purpose was to incite rebellion within the ranks of slavery and sway European support. In the latter intent it was an overwhelming success. The former: not so. Many slaves actually fought with the South out of loyalty to their masters even after being freed.

The analysis provided in the previous link tell it all.
"But the proclamation did show Americans-- and the world--that the civil war was now being fought to end slavery. " As in it wasn't beforehand. "A believer in white supremacy..." Some Great Emancipator, huh?

Most of America was racist then. Plain and simple. The only ones that weren't so racist were the ones who interacted with them daily. The slaveowners themselves. Not saying there weren't racist owners, in fact, to own such slaves is inherently racist though they may not be so by comparison. In fact, it's documented that some owners DID beat their slaves. Frederick Douglass did so in his writings.

In conclusion, I, for one, despise racism in all its many facets and absolutely support worldwide abolition of slavery. Slavery is evil and wrong in every way. But here's a tidbit for ya... slavery isn't illegal in the United States. Read the fine print. Only for those convicted of a crime is it legal. Chain gangs and roadside cleaning crews are, by definition, slaves. The war was lost on logistics. That's all. There were many fierce and honorable combatants on both sides. The industry of the North won the war for them. Plus the war was mostly defensive for the Confederacy. Fighting a defensive war by nature destroys the land which took a major toll on Southern economy... moreso than the North. The South should have lost long before 5 years, but they did persevere. For that, they should be honored and are honored as one of the greatest armies in history. For that reason as well as my personal heritage, do I display the Confederate Battle Flag in my home and do not fear inviting my black friends to my house. If asked, I provide an intelligent explanation. The simple fact that I HAVE black friends eliminates racism as a factor. Rijiny nailed it as far as racism is concerned for most Americans: get over it. I have personally experienced racism as it truly is. Try having black activists attack your heritage to further their political agendas. Only because they know that stirring shit gets them paid. Interracial relations are better than they have ever been in American history. Tiger Woods and Eminem are perfect examples of this. Arthur Ashe. Jackie Robinson. Bear Bryant was the first college coach to put a black man in the sacred quarterback position. Granted we have not yet elected a black president, but everyone can laugh at Chris Rock in Head of State, because the ideas are ridiculous. Not the idea of a black president, but the white reaction is what's funny. It's funny because it won't happen. I would vote for Colin Powell any day. But just because I honor the Confederacy does not make me ignorant, stupid, racist, a bigot, or any other derogatory remark that may be made at such as me.

Oh, and Savaric... the reason Florida drives like asses is because that's where Yankees go to retire. :D





Flame away, I can't wait to retort.

I was going to type out a long, well-thought-out reply to your post, but after reading it through a couple times I settled for a "highlights reel", if you will.

Quote:

---

They (northerners) were far more racist than the slaveowners themselves.

---

Quote:

---

Not until the end of the War Between the States did secession become illegal. And even if it was, what could the U.S. do about it? They are no longer a part of the country and not bound by its laws.

---

Quote:

---

BOHICA is NOT how our government runs!

---

Quote:

---

But here's a tidbit for ya... slavery isn't illegal in the United States. Read the fine print. Only for those convicted of a crime is it legal. Chain gangs and roadside cleaning crews are, by definition, slaves.

---

Quote:

---

Most of America was racist then. Plain and simple. The only ones that weren't so racist were the ones who interacted with them daily. The slaveowners themselves.

---

Quote:

---

In fact, it's documented that some owners DID beat their slaves.

---

Quote:

---

The only difference is that the North could not survive as a country without the South. We brought in too much money on the agricultural side of the economy.

---

I deliberately tried not to come down on either particular side of the debate, and as I said I have no vested interest either way. I actually referred to the CSA as a "failed state" and not a "failed rebellion", so you could at least recognize that much. I am cognizant of issues other than slavery that existed in this entire fiasco now called the American Civil War. I'm not sure why you decided to ding around the slavery issue, and further why you passed off so many personal beliefs as true. There were some gems in that post, though. I was tempted to start a poll as to which was most ridiculous, but take heart: they all finish first in my book!

Ok, I will concede that I should have said BOHICA isn't how our government is SUPPOSED to run. :) Yeah, point was that we're supposed to be able to bring complaints, but yeah, we still get screwed.

And as far as the legalized slavery bit, read the 13th Amendment... it's pretty specific.

My other comments still stand as stated. I cited examples of what happened with the job search in the North as evidence of who truly was racist. Besides, consider human nature. I said that the slaveowners weren't SO racist because I was conceding that they were to some extent. Just about everyone was, it's the way it was then. But if you interact with people on a daily basis, you tend to understand and sympathize with them. So, by comparison, the owners themselves were less racists than their counterparts, though not by their actions.

And what may have seemed like a contradiction was a citation of exception. I never said EVERY slaveowner was racially tolerant or that they all took care of their slaves. Just a generalization.

Now, I recognized that you are familiar with the many issues surrounding the events prior to and during the "Civil War", but my biggest issue is the misrepresentation of history that slavery was the main reason for the war. It wasn't. It was all about money. That's it.

And I have not "passed my personal beliefs off as true". It is fact. My biggest sin is not backing it up as I know I should. Wish I knew where I read that secession wasn't illegal prior to the "Civil War". Now, you're gonna make me research it all over again!

Since you conceded that the CSA is a failed state (which I do not contest), that makes it a separate state, right? Exactly what jurisdiction does England have over the US? Anyway, when I asked what the US could do about a seceding state, that wasn't rhetorical. The answer is conquer it. That is exactly what happened. The CSA was conquered and the states were (forcibly) reannexed into the Union. But I'm glad you recognize that it wasn't a rebellion.

I'm sorry that you came across as being on one side of the debate. You tried to avoid it and failed. And yes, I singled you out because you seemed to be the most vocal against my side. And yes, I do take the CSA's side in the debate over the War Between the States because of the blatant misreporting of history and my own heritage. And before I am possibly labeled as one who'd want to be separate, nothing could be further from the truth. I only returned home last week from deployment, so I am proud of my country. If I were to fly a Confederate flag outside, it would be directly beneath the American Flag.

I'm glad slavery is abolished and I'm glad "we" lost. I'm just tired of biased reporting of history when there are so many other accounts out there. And I'm tired of people trying to convince me to be ashamed of being a straight white man from Alabama. And I'm glad I can debate this with intelligent people. Try arguing either point with someone with the intelligence of a signpost.

And BTW, I didn't even TOUCH Reconstruction... :) I will research my unsubstantiated claims later and post again when I find the links. But I promise I'm not pulling any of this out of my ass... (except maybe some statistics)

Quote:

---

Now, I recognized that you are familiar with the many issues surrounding the events prior to and during the "Civil War", but my biggest issue is the misrepresentation of history that slavery was the main reason for the war. It wasn't. It was all about money. That's it.

---

I don't know if you actually believe this or are content to just make things up, but what I said earlier in this thread was:

I do not dislike the South, either in general or on principle. A significant portion of the debate that sparked the Civil War was, however, based around the issue of slavery and tariffs instituted to protect the north's burgeoning industry that were essentially slowly crushing the Southern economy.

More broadly, it had to do with states' rights/minority rights and economic policy. More specifically, what happened was that the Southern economy was being knocked around by ridiculous tarrifs that allowed northern industry to remain competitive in the realm of global free markets. The abolitionist movement became huge. Slaves were the South's major source of labor, and raw goods its main export. Both were threatened, thus the outcry over losing the fragile balance of power in the legislative branch.

Maybe you misunderstand me. A large part of the political aspect of the Civil War was the issue of slavery. A large part of the literal aspect of the war was the fact that the Southern economy was being plowed under. Simply because every Southerner did not own a slave does not make it less of a sensationalist issue to latch on to so as to add legitimacy to a conflict. Think about current events and how this might apply.

Quote:

---

Since you conceded that the CSA is a failed state (which I do not contest), that makes it a separate state, right? Exactly what jurisdiction does England have over the US?

---

Was the issue of English jurisdiction not settled with the Revolutionary War? Was the issue of United States jurisdiction not settled with the American Civil War? Simply because a region declares itself sovereign does not instantly make it so. Stop belaboring the point, it's a flawed conclusion drawn from flawed logic. The problem lies primarily in that the states that seceded did not do so legally, even prior to the act itself being outlawed. I consider the CSA to be a 'failed state' rather than a 'failed revolution' because a revolution typically replaces the current government with a different set of actors. The CSA attempted to assert its independence and couldn't.

You misunderstood me again. The entire beginning of the CSA was, in fact, a rebellion. States attempted to circumvent the legislative process to gain independence. The reason I consider the organization to be a failed state is because during the outset of the Civil War they had established all the aspects required of an organizational, political state except legitimacy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lebeau
Oh, and Savaric... the reason Florida drives like asses is because that's where Yankees go to retire. :D

---

Must be a lot of retired yankees down there.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Darion
[i]I do not dislike the South, either in general or on principle. A significant portion of the debate that sparked the Civil War was, however, based around the issue of slavery and tariffs instituted to protect the north's burgeoning industry that were essentially slowly crushing the Southern economy.

Maybe you misunderstand me. A large part of the political aspect of the Civil War was the issue of slavery. A large part of the literal aspect of the war was the fact that the Southern economy was being plowed under. Simply because every Southerner did not own a slave does not make it less of a sensationalist issue to latch on to so as to add legitimacy to a conflict. Think about current events and how this might apply.

---

I have. Point I was making in bringing up the Emancipation Proclamation was that if slavery was any kind of significant factor in the declaration of the war, the Proclamation would never have been necessary. Think about it, if slavery was a major factor, why issue a useless proclamation which has been shown by many historians to be a political tool and nothing more? If he truly wished to free slaves, he would have declared all slaves within the United States free and any states taken under Union control after the proclamation is issued. Slavery was only an issue after 1863 when the proclamation was issued. The war began in 1861, over a year and a half before. "Save the Union" was a failed rallying cry and they needed a more heroic reason for the war. It WAS sensational. You're correct in this. But it wasn't as big an issue in the beginning as commonly believed.

Quote:

---

Was the issue of English jurisdiction not settled with the Revolutionary War? Was the issue of United States jurisdiction not settled with the American Civil War? Simply because a region declares itself sovereign does not instantly make it so. Stop belaboring the point, it's a flawed conclusion drawn from flawed logic. The problem lies primarily in that the states that seceded did not do so legally, even prior to the act itself being outlawed. I consider the CSA to be a 'failed state' rather than a 'failed revolution' because a revolution typically replaces the current government with a different set of actors. The CSA attempted to assert its independence and couldn't.

---

In that case, I suggest we stop celebrating Independence Day. July 4th is no longer the birthday of the United States.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedst.../revwar-77.htm

October 17, 1781 - As Yorktown is about to be taken, the British send out a flag of truce. Gen. Washington and Gen. Cornwallis then work out terms of surrender.

This should be the new birthday of the United States... by your definition. Bottom line is once a nation declares itself independent, it essentially is. It's on the previous government to either let them go (which never happens) or try to reconquer the country. Britain failed to retake the United States twice. The United States retook the CSA. Now, whether you want to call it a failed state or a conquered nation, the fact remains that legal or not, the CSA was in fact a separate nation. It all amounts to the same thing in the end. It's not that the CSA wasn't independent, but that they failed to maintain their independence. Political legitimacy was only a problem due to Northern aggression.

Quote:

---

You misunderstood me again. The entire beginning of the CSA was, in fact, a rebellion. States attempted to circumvent the legislative process to gain independence. The reason I consider the organization to be a failed state is because during the outset of the Civil War they had established all the aspects required of an organizational, political state except legitimacy.

---

This is interesting:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/cw/17609.htm
Now this article holds that the North succeeded in preventing diplomatic legitimacy, but it also says that European nations recognized the South's right to belligerency. Seems more like an avoidance of war on the part of Europe...

And here's another:
http://www.sparknotes.com/history/am...section6.rhtml
Once again, Britain is shown to support the South, but only due to a blockade, war threats, economic breakdown, and inconsistent military victories, did Europe not recognize the CSA yet. They took a wait and see attitude. So on this note, I will concede that this is one major victory for the North, and that goal had not been met by the South. Though I do not agree that international recognition is necessary to establish a government, but it is necessary to maintain it. The previous link tells it:
The Confederate states were incapable of winning enough consecutive victories to convince European governments that they could sustain independence.
This would mean that it was actually established, right?

As far as the legality of secession, read this.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/secessio...ationpart6.htm
Secession is NOT illegal as it is not mentioned at all in the Constitution. The 10th Amendment holds that all powers not specifically given to the Federal Government belong to the States. So, I will retract my previous statement that secession was not illegal prior to the "Civil War", because it's still not illegal. Frowned upon? Yes. Bad idea? Oh hell yes. But illegal? No. Hell, adultery isn't illegal either. Doesn't mean it's okay. I have researched and I have failed to find anything legally binding concerning secession from the United States.

Now one more point on this matter:
from www.usconstitution.net FAQ:
Q65. "Where in the Constitution does it mention states' right to secede from the union?"

A. The Constitution does not permit a state to secede once it is a part of the Union. However, it does not prevent it either. It could be argued either way. The Supreme Court added its opinion in Texas v White (74 US 700 [1869]). It said that the entry of Texas into the United States was its entry into "an indissoluble relation." It said that only through revolution or mutual consent of the state and the United States could a state leave the Union (it is interesting to note that Texas benefited from the decision that it had unconstitutionally attempted to leave the Union).

Fascinating, but the only mention there is of secession is from the judiciary branch, which doesn't make laws in any way. They only make opinions of that which is written.

I guess the thing that irks me to no extent is your persistence that I make shit up. I'll tell the truth, I can debate all day without accusatory remarks like that. Present your side, your arguments, your evidence; and I will present mine. Let the debate determine it. But don't accuse me of pulling things out of my ass. If you truly think I invent things, read this:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/secessionjustification.htm

Articles written by a gentleman far more educated than I on the subject and he holds the same principles as me. Pay close attention to the first two paragraphs. That's my true belief. So please, do me a favor. Stop painting me as a belligerent Year-2006 secessionist who makes things up to prove a made up point. I told you before that I didn't link evidence because I didn't feel it was necessary. Now I have.

As far as "belaboring" points, I'm just having an intellectual historical discussion. I have posted numerous links justifying my claims and even some debunking them. You have only replied. A sure way to shut me down is to post ONE link showing how secession is illegal... meaning: from http://www.usconstitution.net/

Your turn...